State vs Jason Lynn Young 2-10-12

otto said:

It's unfortunate that the concerns that are being raised now weren't raised back then. The investigating officer measured everything, checked everything, interviewed everyone and concluded that it was an accident along a stretch of road where accidents had previously happened. The accident was worse for Michelle because she had just removed her seatbelt to get something from the back seat, but Jason certainly had no way of knowing that she would suddenly do that while they were near the river where other similar accidents had occurred.

Click to expand...

Otto, this incident was investigated by a highway patrolman, yes a traffic cop. His plan was the murder to look 100% like an accident. Why would this traffic cop think a car in the river would be anything but an accident, if the driver claimed he lost control?

Elizabeth Ratliff was murdered on the stairs and the cops said a stroke. It was not until he murdered Kathleen was Michale Peterson implicated in the earlier death...hindsight is 20-20.

MY was unbuckled and reaching in the rear because JLY asked her to (noise in rear). She did not spontaneously do it on her own, as you claim.
I went to this scene and did my own investigation. Do you have a link or accident report where there were other cars that dropped off the road into the river in that same area? No, because this is the first time it has happened (per NCDOT records). Not sure why you would proclaim this as fact when it is simply untrue?

Some ask why would he risk his life as well? Lets not forget Jay was an experienced white water raft instructor that fully expected every second of the event. IMO, MY would be stunned and thrown with no belt. he would then hold her head down and drown her. The river was not visible from the road at that point. There would be no witness, even if there was a struggle.

Yes, IMO but this is shared by many, including WCSO and the prosecution.



barclay.mp4 video by alive695 - Photobucket

Boodles said:

For those of you who watched the entire last trial, was there focus on the many phone calls between JY and his mother? That is so suspicious to me, and I am sure to many others. Was there a logical explanation given, ever?

Click to expand...

Boodles, his explanation for 28 calls on Friday was bad cell service in the mountains. I buy some of that, but he was desperate to talk to her so she could also call MF about the stupid coach purse.

fran said:

I don't know if you watched the first trial. I did, but I don't want to sway you just because I did.

But, I watched this case unfold from the get go. I was like you, THOUGHT he did it, but there was no way they could place him back at the crime scene. Well, that was before evidence started surfacing. It didn't take a day or a week, but months, and at time years. This isn't my opinion from the trial, per se, it is from watching the news clips that would appear over the years after the murder, before JY was arrested.

So watch the trial, look at the evidence, and see what you think.

Just remember, this pros has a very GOOD conviction rate, from what I've heard. They do NOT arrest someone until they're CERTAIN they can get a conviction. More times than not they do.

Let's see if the jury agrees with the pros.

JMHO
fran

PS....fwiw, the first trial, the defense had a card up their sleeve. JY testified and the prosecution wasn't ready and frankly, they blew their cross. We here on Websleuths were having fits, believe me. When the jury hung, we were shocked, but after we looked back after a few days, and KNEW why. I'm just glad the DA decided to retrial, eventhough it was more for NO than Yea.

See, BECAUSE JY hadn't given his version of ANYTHING, the prosecutor had NOTHING to go on, as for his side of the story. But seriously, I watched it myself, JY spent the whole first trial, scribbling notes for EVERY pros witness. Then when he testified, he'd thought of an alternate explanation of each piece of incriminating evidence. BUT, they played their card,...........now they have no secrets. It's all out on the table and the prosecutor has MORE witnesses as to the difficulty in the marriage. Many believe it won't matter, but it does. To this jury, it does.

Let's just pray Justice is done for Michelle. Either way, JUSTICE for Michelle.

Click to expand...

No I didn`t watch the first trial. I was so involved with the Anthony case that I hardly had time to follow anything else. Unfortunately, work will get in the way of following this second trial and I`ll have to rely a lot on the wonderful updates from members here and of course, Beth Karas and Mark Nejame on HLN with Vinnie.

I`m looking forward to the connection tying him to the crime scene and how he was able to do it being miles away. Even if there is no physical evidence at the crime scene, I want to see other evidence presented that will show me how he was able to do it without leaving one single crumb behind.

Like I said, I think he did it but at this point I honestly wouldn`t be able to convict him with what has been presented thus far. Yes, I know we have a long way to go and hopefully some of my doubts will be addressed by the prosecution.

Regarding his testimony at the first trial, like you, the pundints are saying it will probably be his downfall in this second trial. The prosecution is armed and ready for him.

Justice for Michelle :rose:

~n/t~ said:

No I didn`t watch the first trial. I was so involved with the Anthony trial that I hardly had time to follow anything else. Unfortunately, work will get in the way of following this second trial and I`ll have to rely a lot on the wonderful updates from members here and of course, Beth Karas and Mark Nejame on HLN with Vinnie.

I`m looking forward to the connection tying him to the crime scene and how he was able to do it being miles away. Even if there is no physical evidence at the crime scene, I want to see other evidence presented that will show me how he was able to do it without leaving one single crumb behind.

Like I said, I think he did it but at this point I honestly wouldn`t be able to convict him with what has been presented thus far. Yes, I know we have a long way to go and hopefully some of my doubts will be addressed by the prosecution.


Regarding his testimony at the first trial, like you, the pundints are saying it will probably be his downfall in this second trial. The prosecution is armed and ready for him.

Justice for Michelle :rose:

Click to expand...

Be patient, cause there is much more to come.
You will soon learn they have proof he bought a pair of relatively rare Hush Puppy Orbital shoes 15 months before the murder (have receipt).
Guess what, that rare shoe sole was found in blood at the crime scene.

Of course, he claimed MY gave the 1 year old pair to Goodwill at his direction, LOL

Followed this case since the outset in Nov 2006; live in Raleigh and my wife was pregnant with our first child so there was a sad similarity that drew my attention. As well a good friend was a year or two behind Young at NC State and JY was his resident assistant one year. His description of Young right away was that he was the "ladies man", immature and party guy with lots of friends. He also said he immediately believed it very possible that Young could do something so heinous (how eerie that must have been for him). Everything else has since played out to today.

I was stunned at the mistrial last year, shows the unintended consequence of all the TV crime shows...people, unfortunately, are just too subconsciously influenced by CSI et al ( a point raised many times in this case and others). With that said, I hoped the prosecution would have learned a lesson from the first trial. First, if at all possible I would have replaced Becky Holt. She may be a fine jurist, but she failed in her first at bat, in a case that is obvious to anyone who's paid attention. Fine, establish that he is a "jerk", immature and unfaithful. That could have been shown in one or two days, IMO. But FOCUS on the facts, and coincidences, of the case that scream of his guilt. No need or time to restate everything, but the Cliff's Notes version: recent life ins bump, internet searches (his first trial testimony was laughable in this regard), ALL of the oddities from the hotel, the missing shirt (hello!), the handprint with Michelle Young's blood around it, the child being cleaned and drugged with adult medicine, the shoeprint (that's the slam dunk of the case), no signs of break-in or robbery, the ebay printout, late arrival to meeting, multiple phone calls to Meredith Fisher including from Pat Young, not asking what happened or how his daughter was, and very damning to me are the email exchanges with his sister. Those statements are practically admitting guilt. Note that I have not even included his awful email to Michelle -- I do find that relevant, but all of these examples relate to the crime itself. The foundation, that he was a jerk, could have been shown day 1 especially since the defense has admitted it; that's the one area that need not be used to beat into the jury's head, so fine, now build the CASE that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that this bad husband also killed his wife and unborn son.

I would have minimized the mother-in-law's testimony and her "role" in the marriage. This may sound rotten but Mrs. Fisher comes across as someone who, if she were your mother-in-law, you would not want visiting very much or possibly living with you (especially if you're an immature jerk and bad husband). Any married man is going to sympathize with another man whose m-i-l is perceived as too involved in the marriage...that's not intended as a slam on Mrs. Fisher. I said after the mistrial that the Northern vs Southern cultural differences could have affected the jury if most of them were native Southerners, which I am as well. God knows she has suffered terribly because of Jason Young. And she should hate Jason. But she adds little to no value to the trial itself, and as a married man who has zero doubt of Jason Young's guilt, I would have left her off the witness list. My prayers remain for justice in this case, and the prosecution needs to build a clear picture of the MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence, and less on the fact that the guy was not very responsible as an adult and liked to go to football games.

fred, I agree about the MIL issues. Did you notice LF's testimony was quite a bit shorter this time and there was no cross? Not wanting his MIL around is no motive for murdering your wife. Personally, I think he hated Michelle and just saw Linda as an extension of her.

About this lawyering up. That's his right, and a good idea innocent or guilty. However, it should not be laid on the lawyer that JY did not have any interest in the investigation or provide even basic information to the police. If he'd had an inclination toward one or both, it's a safe bet the lawyer would have assisted with no worries.

Even his own lawyers say he acts like a jerk, and if he's not guilty then his decisions in this regard are consistent with that. I doubt seriously they are because of his lawyer.

I don't personally know any lawyer who would shut down the flow of information about the investigation of a murdered spouse to the client, and I don't know one who is too dumb to figure out how to communicate with law enforcement without sacrificing his client's position.

I agree the lawyer would have said don't talk about it with the police. And it's a good idea not to talk about it with anybody, because that can go back to the police. But, that same lawyer I'm confident would have facilitated controlled communication had his client wanted that. However, if your client has no interest in helping the police or knowing anything about the investigation, then Lawyering 101 is let's just say nothing - it doesn't get easier than that.

Fred, that's a very sensible post. The defense concedes he's a jerk, and showing some of that jerk behavior is useful, but in the end he shouldn't go to jail (and likely won't) just because he's a jerk (note: just using defense counsel terms for client - I'd love to call JY worse!). The evidence needs to be out there and clear. The rest is motive, inclination and opportunity. Those are there, so the main point is, is there evidence enough that he did do it?

I'm sure there is still more jerk behavior to come, like prior violence against women and a few other things, but hopefully after that they get to the circumstantial evidence they have, and then we get to see the defense perspective on that and that is really the crux of the case.

gritguy, he hired Roger Smith jr on that Monday. JLY said he paid a retainer to represent him during the investigation. Sounds like the only thing he actually did was drive him down to the PS Center for the NTO. It was interesting Roger Jr dropped him like a rock as soon as he was arrested. He could have taken the same court appointed status as Klink if he desired to stay on the case.

Just the Fax said:

fred, I agree about the MIL issues. Did you notice LF's testimony was quite a bit shorter this time and there was no cross? Not wanting his MIL around is no motive for murdering your wife. Personally, I think he hated Michelle and just saw Linda as an extension of her.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I admit I am not watching the live coverage of the retrial after trying to catch as much as I could first go round. Cannot stomach the thought of his getting away with it so I'm avoiding it. Following via media and message boards.

With regard to my first post about Mrs. Fisher, I should add that I don't believe any juror would flip their verdict if they were convinced of guilt based on any visceral reaction to a witness. At the same time, as one of the admittedly most biased observers of this case, as a married man, I can "get" that the guy wouldn't want his MIL moving in. I have a much better relationship with my MIL and I sure wouldn't want her living with my family. These two clearly were not a fit, and that is of minimal importance to this case when there is so much circumstantial evidence showing Jason's guilt. Why allow for an ounce of sympathy for him then? Anyway, I'm happy they reduced her role and have moved along. Ideally, I would have saved her for the penalty phase, provided and Lord knows we should get to that point.

EDIT to add: My God, that video of the car "accident". I was aware of that, and confident this was his first attempt at killing Michelle. The added description plus the video, just underscores the evil and planning Jason put into this case. No doubt his plan was very close to as you've described...he would have drowned her if he could. Jason Young is one sick puppy.

This has been probably answered before, but what exactly happens if there is another mistrial? Does the state just continue to have the option to retry him as long as there is no verdict?

"Why allow for an ounce of sympathy for him then?"

The only thing going for this testimony is there are 8 women on the jury. Of the 4 men (1 white, 3 black), perhaps they would share the same 'real life' feeling most guys would think about their MIL. Most love 'em, but certainly would not want them living in their home for an extended period. This testimony will be quickly forgotten when the evidence turns to the multiple affairs shortly before her demise....actual motive for murder.

cityslick said:

This has been probably answered before, but what exactly happens if there is another mistrial? Does the state just continue to have the option to retry him as long as there is no verdict?

Click to expand...

They can go for #3 if they want.
Problem is money, of course.
Also, I would think a decision would be easier to retry if a hung jury was due to 11-1 Guilty
They could always offer a plea deal to avoid a 3rd trial.

Gritguy?

Not trusting my memory, I did a little googling, but I agree they can. Will they and should they? Depends on the factors you cite, I agree, as well as I think the public has a lower tolerance for putting someone on trial over and over in a high profile case. Here's some authority on the subject:

"As a general rule, the prosecutor is entitled to one, and only one, opportunity to require an accused to stand trial. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978). This principle notwithstanding, there is no specific state or federal constitutional limit on how many times a defendant can be retried after a mistrial is granted. Instead, each double jeopardy claim must be examined individually and considered in light of the particular facts of the case. See State v. Simpson, 303 N.C. 439 (1981) (no double jeopardy violation found in defendant’s third trial for the same charges since there was no indication of harassment by the State or bad faith conduct by the trial judges in the prior trials, and it appeared that the previous juries were genuinely deadlocked and given every reasonable opportunity to reach a verdict); State v. Williams, 51 N.C. App. 613, 619 (1981) (finding that double jeopardy did not preclude a fourth retrial where the previous mistrials were properly ordered based on juror misconduct and juror deadlock with no objection by defendant, the State acted “expeditiously and fairly to achieve a final resolution, and all four trials took place in less than a year&#8221."

http://www.ncids.org/Def%20Manual%20Info/Defender_Manual_Vol%202/DefenderManual_CH33.pdf

Regarding the accident, a co-worker testiied that Michelle wanted her skin lotion, removed her seatbelt and was reaching back to get lotion. I don't recall any testimony where it was said that Jason asked Michelle to take off her seatbelt and do something in the back of the vehicle.

otto said:

Regarding the accident, a co-worker testiied that Michelle wanted her skin lotion, removed her seatbelt and was reaching back to get lotion. I don't recall any testimony where it was said that Jason asked Michelle to take off her seatbelt and do something in the back of the vehicle.

Click to expand...

Ms Bolick said Jason ran off the road because he thought the interior light was on (assume he told MY he was distracted).
Body lotion? No otto, the testimony MY unbuckled (simultaneous to his 'distraction') to reach for her makeup bag....imo, apparently tipped or open - perhaps making noise.

So, on a 25 MPH curve he just happened to think his interior light was on and at the same time, MY just happened to unbuckle. At the same moment of these 2 events, the vehicle crosses all the way over the center line, across the other lane, down a steep embankment straight into the river. Hmmm, what a coincidence.

I thought it was interesting JLY's reaction to Rylan was "not as expected".

Please continue the weekend discussion here ..................

State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-12 Feb 2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


I'm going to copy the last few posts on this page over to the weekend thread.

fran

JTF, I want to read the wreck report, but can't read the doc you posted. Do you have a link to where I might find it online? Thanks!! And I don't understand the video. Is that the stretch of road in question and you duplicated the speed?